Legislation that could end Ocean and tidal Fish'n?

[Lepper]

This has been called to my attention.. This is long, but if you FISH you need to read this.. From what I see this is not good at all and is trying to be passed without much press....

Should this be in another forum as well?? we need to get the word out..

Read on..... a few key places highlighted...

Link for those who want it
http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/mea...734.intro.html

the full tamale...

73rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2005 Regular Session

NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
{ + braces and plus signs + } .

LC 2395

Senate Bill 734

Sponsored by COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE


SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.

Directs State Parks and Recreation Commission to establish
system of marine parks. Specifies purposes of marine parks.
Directs Department of State Lands to establish system of marine
reserves. Specifies purposes of marine reserves.

A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to marine protected areas; creating new provisions; and
amending ORS 390.180.



Whereas Oregon's marine biodiversity is a vital asset to the
state because Oregon's ocean waters contain recreational,
commercial, ecological, historical, educational and aesthetic
values; and
Whereas the marine environment is subject to damage and loss of
ecological integrity due to human activities, including
overfishing of groundfish; and
Whereas local coastal communities are directly affected by the
degradation of the marine environment and have an economic
interest in preserving and restoring healthy marine populations
and critical bottom habitat; and
Whereas state and federal agencies have concluded that marine
reserves are a valuable management tool for protecting and
recovering the marine environment; and
Whereas marine reserves protect habitat, conserve biological
diversity, provide sanctuary for fish and other marine life,
enhance recreational and educational opportunities and may help
rebuild depleted fisheries; and
Whereas the biology of groundfish is only beginning to be fully
understood, but marine reserves are known to act as nurseries for
groundfish, allowing older, more productive fish to survive while
producing greater numbers of offspring that may help replenish
populations outside the reserve; and
Whereas a significant risk to marine fisheries is our lack of
understanding regarding the biology of marine life, and marine
reserves can help expand our knowledge of marine life and its
ecosystem; and
Whereas sound management of ocean resources requires adequate
financial resources and close coordination with the federal
government; and
Whereas a limited system of marine reserves, designed and
managed according to clear conservation-based goals and

guidelines, can provide the state with multiple benefits; now,
therefore,
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. { + Section 2 of this 2005 Act is added to and made
a part of ORS chapter 390. + }
SECTION 2. { + (1) The State Parks and Recreation Commission
shall establish a system of marine parks along the Oregon coast.

((2) Marine parks shall be designated in areas immediately
oceanward of a state park, state recreation area or other
state-owned property to a distance to be determined by the
commission and that, in the determination of the commission,
properly allows for:


(a) Conservation of unique marine resources;
(b) Promotion of coastal recreation and tourism;
(c) Provision of outdoor classrooms for marine education; and
(d) Marine recreational activities, including but not limited
to sport fishing, diving, kayaking, underwater photography and
nonextractive uses that do not harm the marine ecosystem.
(3) The commission shall establish, as part of any marine park,
onshore facilities that aid in the education and enjoyment of the
marine park by the public.
(4) In cooperation with the State Fish and Wildlife Commission,
the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of
State Lands, the State Parks and Recreation Commission shall
develop rules limiting the uses of areas established as marine
parks under this section to ensure the protection and enhancement
of marine ecosystems within the park and to promote the purposes
for which the marine parks are established. + }
SECTION 3. ORS 390.180 is amended to read:
390.180. (1) The State Parks and Recreation Director shall
adopt rules that:
(a) Establish the standards the State Parks and Recreation
Department shall use when that department:
(A) Performs comprehensive statewide recreational planning; or
(B) Disburses any moneys to local governments or other state
agencies under programs established under state or federal law.
(b) Establish a process for the development of a master plan
for each state park { + and marine park + }, including public
participation and coordination with affected local governments.
(c) Establish a master plan for each state park { + and marine
park + }, including an assessment of resources and a
determination of the capacity for public use and enjoyment of
each park, that the State Parks and Recreation Department shall
follow in its development and use of each park.
(2) The State Parks and Recreation Director shall submit an
adopted state park { + or marine park + } master plan to the
local government with land use planning responsibility for the
subject park.
SECTION 4. { + Sections 5 and 6 of this 2005 Act are added to
and made a part of ORS 274.705 to 274.860. + }
SECTION 5. { + (1) Pursuant to the exclusive jurisdiction
provided to the Department of State Lands over all ungranted
tidal submerged lands under ORS 274.710, the department shall
establish marine reserves on state-owned tidal submerged lands
for the purpose of protecting and restoring specific areas of
marine habitat that are beneficial to marine life.
(2) In cooperation with the State Fish and Wildlife Commission
and the Ocean Policy Advisory Council, the department shall
determine the areas of tidal submerged lands that are critical to
the life cycles of fish and other marine life and designate those
areas as marine reserves.
(3) The department by rule shall establish the allowable uses
that may occur within marine reserves. However, the department
may not permit extractive activities, such as fishing and oil and
gas extraction, or other activities that upset natural ecological
functions that occur within the area of marine reserves. + }


SECTION 6. { + (1) The purpose of marine reserves established
under section 5 of this 2005 Act is to conserve marine resources
and ecological functions for the purpose of providing long-term
ecological, economic and social values and benefits to future
generations of Oregonians.
(2) In order to accomplish the objectives specified in
subsection (1) of this section, the Department of State Lands
may:
(a) Cooperate with and coordinate the establishment, regulation
and modification of marine reserves with any agency of state
government, as that term is defined in ORS 174.111, or the
federal government;
(b) Seek gifts, grants, bequests and endowments of private and
federal moneys and deposit these moneys in an account in the
Common School Fund to be used to facilitate the establishment,
regulation and monitoring of marine reserves;
(c) Contract with private individuals to perform marine
research and monitoring relating to marine reserves;
(d) Coordinate with the State Parks and Recreation Commission
to complement the commission's efforts at establishment of marine
parks under section 2 of this 2005 Act; and
(e) Encourage the participation of local governments, as
defined in ORS 174.116, and coastal residents in development of
plans to reduce the short-term effect that creation of marine
reserves may have on local economies. + }

[Lepper]

maybe someone who is a bit more "savy" in this area can interupt this for us..

do I need to be worried or is this a bunch a bologna??

[Mark Mc]

Lep, see this:

http://www.ifish.net/forum/showflat....ev=#Post756512

[skein]

And no word back from Black Magic or RFA. Don't they want our help?

Bottom line: we don't want the Parks Dept to have ANY say over ANYTHING marine. They are the same crew that tried to secretly lock off half the Oregon coast - and got caught.

We need to be screaming about this one. :whazzup:

Skein

[Sallysea]

Be aware that this legislation would lock up all state beaches and tidal influenced lands to "no extraction" of anything, especially fish. This is sponsored by the Audubon Society and they are not friends to the fisherman. The boundaries would probably be to the edge of the terratorial sea or three miles out.
There is a lot of money going into this bill, we need to be vigilant.

If you live on the north coast, you might be interested that Fred Warrenton, a charter boat operator had his name withdrawn from being a member of OPAC and was replaced by a non-ocean fisherman who is more eco-friendly. Talk to your legislators, he needs to be back on the committee.

[fish assassin]

((2) Marine parks shall be designated in areas immediately
oceanward of a state park, state recreation area or other
state-owned property to a distance to be determined by the
commission and that, in the determination of the commission,
properly allows for:

"Other state owned property"???? ALL of Oregons beaches are state owned property and
fall under the management of the Parks Department (if I remember correctly). So, if this
bill passes there would be NO FISHING within three miles of any Oregon land mass.

Huh!

The only good thing about this bill is that it is soooo poorly written that it is not
expected to pass! I certainly hope not! It would totally close down all bottom fishing
as we know it since the deep water fisheries are already closed and 3 miles out is about
the 30 fathom curve ...

Also, who has enough crab line to run their pots at 30+ fathoms?? Who wants to pull
a pot from that deep? Not me!!

~assAssin~

[corrirod]

:whazzup:

I'm a little confused. They want to close down fishing but in the paragraph below they want to allow it:

((2) Marine parks shall be designated in areas immediately ceanward of a state park, state recreation area or other state-owned property to a distance to be determined by the commission and that, in the determination of the commission, properly <font color="red">ALLOWS FOR: </font>

(a) Conservation of unique marine resources;
(b) Promotion of coastal recreation and tourism;
(c) Provision of outdoor classrooms for marine education; and
(d) Marine recreational activities, including but not limited to SPORT FISHING , diving, kayaking, underwater photography and nonextractive uses that do not harm the marine ecosystem.

Huh?

[Billfisher]

I'm not reading that they want to close down anything but ****** fishing. See Rod's post.

[fish assassin]

Maybe they are talking about commercial catch and release? Must be, 'cause fishing
would be considered an "extractive use", wouldn't it?
:whazzup: :whazzup: :whazzup: :whazzup: :whazzup: :whazzup:

~assAssin~

[OceanBlue]

Sally, I believe you're referring to Frank Warrens.

Jim, Oregon Anglers has put together an "Evaluation of SB734" - that he handed out at the Sport Advisory Commitee meeting last Wednesday. I just have had way too much to do to get it electronically from Denny and post it.

something else, too, that we should be aware of, and are being asked to get involved in is an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) to evaluate the effects of fishing on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) where groundfish are concerned. Seems that some enviro groups sued PFMC over some issue of the Fishery Management Plan being to vague or something. Anyway, it rolls downhill and now ODFW is scrambling to meet the requirements of the suit. What does this mean? It means that ODFW must define some areas as EFH (essential fish habitat) and some areas of HAPC (Habitat Areas of Particular Concern). These HAPCs must be in EFH.

Bottom line - HAPCs are likely targets for sanctuaries. IMHO, once HAPCs are established the enviros next step is to fire on these targets, making them off limits to everyone.

You may read the entire EIS here: Complete EIS

In addition (and some feel related, although I don't understand exactly how), another tidbit to note: At the SAC last Wednesday, we were handed a memo detailing new Federal Requirements for TUNAS and SHARKS.

Seems that NMFS is requiring Commercial and Recreational Charter fishing vessels to obtain an HMS (highly migratory species) permit from NMFS if that vessel will be used to fish for HMS.

In addition, commercial vessels and rec charters are required to maintain a logbook and there are some additional rules around what species can be retained if caught while fishing for HMS.

How this relates to the EIS, I'm unclear, but does anyone see the writing on the wall?

Join RFA. Join Oregon Anglers. Let these people be your voice in Washington DC and in Salem.

Sorry for the long post... and for the brevity, but there is no time for me to get into this much right now. I'll have Denny put something together and post it here or have Janice do it.

[Pilar]

I smell something, don't you?

I can't imagine letting a govenment entity, no matter how well intentioned have this kind of control over the nearshore for any reason.

Whereas local coastal communities are directly affected by the degradation of the marine environment and have an economic interest in preserving and restoring healthy marine populations and critical bottom habitat; and whereas state and federal agencies have concluded that marine reserves are a valuable management tool for protecting and recovering the marine environment; and"

Which State agencies have decided that Marine reserves are an effective way of managing the nearshore? And based on what evidence or scientific studies? As Rod pointed out they can't even decide what activities they will allow. Also laughable is the mention of recreational activities like Kayaking, Diving, Underwater photography and sport fishing in the same paragraph as the blah de blah about prohibiting 'extractive' activities that interfere with the natural function of the marine environment.

(d) Marine recreational activities, including but not limited to sport fishing, diving, kayaking, underwater photography and nonextractive uses that do not harm the marine ecosystem.

Dunno about you but I think the coastal economy will have trouble buying much more than a cup of coffee with all the money that will pour in from 'Kayaking'. Can't remember seeing even one freakin kayak at sea, ever.

This is being pushed as a remedy to the impact of marine environment degradation on the coastal economy.

How do we send these yay hoos back to the land of fruit and nuts where they belong? Do we need the "freedom to fish act?" or what?

Stop the Californication of Oregon before it is too late.

We need to park all the boats and trailers where the uninformed can not ignore them. Maybe then they will get a clue about the 1/2 billion dollars spent on 'extractive' tourism and recreation and where that money really comes from.

Who do we write to and how do we stop this horse puckey?

[fish-on]

its just the ACLU and the same people that tried to close off the whole coast for that stupid bird thats all over the place down there , they are not gonna get their way , but we cant let our guard down , I wouldnt worry about it too much

[skein]

Rod, don't forget these parks people have now banned ATV's from even being in some of the parks that are gateways to the dunes area - where "playing" has been going on for as long as I can remember. You can't even push your 4-wheeler through the park to get at the sand. That's their mentality.

They are dangerous.

Skein

[fish assassin]

its just the ACLU and the same people that tried to close off the whole coast for that stupid bird thats all over the place down there , they are not gonna get their way , but we cant let our guard down , I wouldnt worry about it too much

Huh?? What the heck has the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) have to do with closing
fisheries or creating Marine Preserves?? Am I missing something here?

Thanks,
~assAssin~

[corrirod]

Don't get me wrong, I'm COMPLETELY against this. I was just trying to show how messed up there verbage was. One paragraph states they want to close fishing, the other says they'll allow it.

[skein]

Oh yeah, one more thing.

Once again we are reacting to a situation rather than instigating or directing it. We will always lose by that method. Maybe not all at once, but little by little.

Who among you think the set-asides at the rockpile won't increase, both in size and restrictions?

The French have a saying, "Little by little, the bird builds its nest."

Skein

[kamloops]

With fuel prices soaring into unchartered territory this summer, why is it the same people/groups pushing these
marine sanctuaries are the same people that block domestic
drilling of petroleum. I'm sure they are thrilled at the price of diesel.
No doubt they replace boats with kayaks and autos with birkenstocks.

Don't forget, Oregon already one of the largest M.R.
in the nation with the &gt;40 fathom restriction. It's not just the rockpile.

[As yet un-named]

(3) The department by rule shall establish the allowable uses
that may occur within marine reserves. However, the department
may not permit extractive activities, such as fishing and oil and
gas extraction, or other activities that upset natural ecological
functions that occur within the area of marine reserves. + }

I really worry about anything that says "The Department by Rule". Means they don't have to ask anyone, or use science, or common sense, or....... No Democracy in that method of governing!

[garyk]

Reading some of these comments you would think that fishing was unregulated. Anyone remember ODFW

I'm always surprised at the hostile reaction that marine reserves get.

Is anyone still opposed to waterfowl reserves and outright refuges? Anyone think those refuges where you cannot shoot will be the end of waterfowling?

Maybe because I actually know and interact with a broad range of folks from guides and boat operators to Auduboners and other conservationists, I don't get jacked around by the RFA paranoia.

Drop the name-calling and provide some productive input instead

[skein]

Thanks, Gary, for stopping by. Always a pleasure to have you straighten us out.

Skein

[kamloops]

Oh yeh I forgot

<font color="red"> </font> JOIN THE RFA

[OceanBlue]

Gary, 734 isn't about anything constructive. It hands vast areas of OCEAN over to the PARKS dept... I ask again, what does PARKS know about managing our coastal waters? We have ODFW Marine Resources for that. What possible purpose would there be in having Parks manage the ocean? Do people go to the coast to look at the ocean? Yup. Do they go to the coast to look at fishes and kelp beds under the surface? Nope (I'm talking about the masses). Do they have any awareness of what's there, what's not there? Are they concerned about the fishies being protected? not so much. So what possible good would come from having vast areas of the ocean, willy-nilly, be declared as non-extractive use? Based on nothing more than the fact that they're adjacent to a State Park - it makes ZERO sense.

Now, if there was some habitat management strategy out of this, I could maybe swallow it - like closing part of the rockpile during all-depth halibut. I can see where the MARINE RESOURCES folks felt like they had little other choice - based on the data they have available.

Parks dept? Yeah, right. Not a marine reserve, sanctuary or anything else. Just an extension of the park.

Sorry, but there's no rhetoric, paranoia or anything other than common sense that makes me when I read this bill. Waste of time, waste of paper.

[judyfish99]

Is this similar what happened to the Santa Barbara Channel in California??? When I was down there about 3 years ago, I wanted to go fishing....there was a moratorium :whazzup:

[Joe Schwab]

While the concept of Parks managing "fishing" may sound a little off base, there are some things that need to be kept in mind. "Fishing" by definition in Oregon refers to commercial methods, and as has been the case, groundfishing has for years been stripping the bottom of structure and cover. It exists simply because it is an economical way to harvest groundfish.

Notice in the wording that "fishing" is used along with oil exploration and mining. Sport fishing is used in the context of recreational activities. I would want to know a lot more about this before passing judgement and getting all bent out of shape.

Yes, ODFW is probably more qualified to regulate issues on fishing and sport fishing. But remember they are also obligated by law to give equal consideration to both.

[garyk]

Thanks, Gary, for stopping by. Always a pleasure to have you straighten us out.

You're welcome, I think.

Just offering this sport angler's alternative perspective to RFA's hysteria. It doesn't matter to RFA who the managing agency is; they're reflexively against marine reserves. I read their paper too.

BTW, in my conversations with ocean conservation folks, my advice to them is to include sport anglers and charter folks to the max, to devise a sound plan that's acceptable to the greatest number possible. Always a challenge and made harder by end-of-fishing-as-we-know-it hysteria

See ya on the salt.

[SouthCoastStu]

Skein, OB, Kamloops, Corrirod, Pilar, et. al.-

What is the best/easiest strategy to get this poorly conceived, unnecessary, frivolous piece of legislation killed? Parks Dept. manage fish
E-mail our State Rep? I think I could come up with a pretty good letter outlining what a conservative job ODF&amp;W is doing managing the resource (recent closures) and asking how we as tax payers can afford this additional layer of bureacracy when the State is cutting school days blah, blah blah.....

[tailchaser]

Just to clear a few things up, it will allow fishing, but not keeping; if you read the following paragraph one word sums it up:

The department by rule shall establish the allowable uses
that may occur within marine reserves. However, the department
may not permit extractive activities, such as fishing and oil and
gas extraction, or other activities that upset natural ecological
functions that occur within the area of marine reserves. + }

Basically, you get to keep fishing (nice of them isn't it) but keeping fish is out of the question. If it is deemed you're hurting the ecosystem, then they reserve the right to shut it down completely.

The sad thing garyk, is the fact that most sportsmen/women are looking out for the environment by heart. However, the reason we don't give an inch in this fight is because everyone knows they're not after the crumbs, they want the whole pie. It's not a secret and they're willing to nibble at anything that's given for the eventual win over sportsmen. Bills like this are aimed at sideswiping an entire fishery and doom communities up and down the coast. This is the exact reason I would never agree with the stonewall bank closure. Once it's given up, they'll never reinstate it.

tc

[skein]

Well, I'm kinda far out there, so temper what I say, and listen pretty hard to what the others say.

I think we need to go after the parks department. They have become the avenue of choice for the latest round of take-aways and set-asides. I keep going back to the plover thing, but it was the parks dept that was going to see that through. I also mentioned their heavy-handed approach to the sand dune riders, who, whether you ride or not (I don't), are a legitimate group utilizing our public lands.

I think we need to put soooo much heat on that department, starting with demanding they roll back decisions they made in the past five or six years, and see if we can't make them squirm enough to be gun-shy whenever some wacko group comes down the pike with a piece of legislation that includes them doing the dirty work.

We need to put the heat on our state legislators to include the sportsmen - and the income we produce - in every decision made regarding fish and game, both in the state and in federal waters. Then we need to go after the forest service.

I'm a fun guy, huh? But I don't see us winning any other way.

Skein

[kamloops]

These groups are very well funded and highly connected to
legislators who are open to line their coffers. It should be at least mentioned that one of the *benefits* to all these eco-extremests lawsuits is the discovery to
open these groups to who and what makes them tick.
They all share one common goal, and it ain't us.

[garyk]

I think we need to put soooo much heat on that department, starting with demanding they roll back decisions they made in the past five or six years

Hey that's a dandy strategy.

So now you're gonna give Sand Lake / Whalen Island back to .... developers?

And un-build the Lewis &amp; Clark coastal trail in Clatsop County too?

Oregon State Parks Dept is the bad guy? Who woulda thunk it

Just remember when you go to ODFW about being the primary manager for Marine Reserves, among the first words they'll say is -- "We don't manage the habitat." That's why OSPD is the agency for managing property; they're equiped to do it. It's not a conspiracy, just boring ol' bureaucratic reality.

[Puffin]

Beware the wording here boys and girls. State owned property includes ALL beaches in Oregon.

[Lepper]

We can discuss this until we are blue in our faces.. What we need.. (I should have put it in the original post sorry)

IS email address to contact the people that need to be bugged to death.. And since it is 12 a.m. I am not going to look them up tonight. anyone have them already? and just post them?

Let's start mass emailing them.. Legistlators.. gov.. State parks.. EVERYONE.. let's make it known that we don't like it and we ain't going to accept it..


power in numbers.. seperated we get sqashed..

[corrirod]

That's why OSPD is the agency for managing property; they're equiped to do it.

How are the Parks Departments setup for barotrauma research facilities? In fact how many marine biologists do they employ? Or maybe they'll just hire all the ODFW biologists that lose their jobs?

the agency for managing property

It's not "property" that we are having a problem managing, it's fish stocks. As far as I can tell the "property" off our coasts is just fine, we just "supposedly" don't have enough fish habitating in them.

Nobody is saying OSPD are "bad guys" either, we're just saying their not the "right guys" for the job.

I've got an idea. Why don't you make a marine reserve 100 miles offshore where only the commercial boats would be impacted?

[OceanBlue]

Just remember when you go to ODFW about being the primary manager for Marine Reserves, among the first words they'll say is -- "We don't manage the habitat." That's why OSPD is the agency for managing property; they're equiped to do it. It's not a conspiracy, just boring ol' bureaucratic reality.

I certainly don't think the parks dept is the bad guy. I think that whomever authored this bill is off his rocker.

When it comes to the ocean, I believe Marine Resources manages the habitat. That's as it should be. They're the most qualified to do so.

I don't think this thing will move forward. But if it should make it any further, it could show up on a ballot. If that happens... well... think about it. It's really about more than losing our fishing. It's about what will happen to the coastal economy &amp; the increased pressure it will have on inland waters, etc. Think of the domino effect. The implications are frightening.

Oregon Anglers is working very hard on this one folks. I surely hope you all consider helping them fight for your cause. Voicing your disgust after a bill such as this has passed will do no one any good.

[Pilar]

I don't read the RFA paper so if my views coincide with theirs it is a coincidence.

Let's try another scenario shall we?

Let's try to get rid of gillnetters in the Columbia River. Let's do that by declaring the river a 'Riverine Sanctuary'. For the sake of brevity let's use the same language used to define 'Marine Sanctuary'.

So no more extractive activities on the Columbia. You can fish there GaryK but it's C and R only. Since hatcheries interfere with the natural order of things and fish to take home or to subsidize tribes or gillnetters are no longer needed lets shut down all the hatcheries.

Also the current hodge podge of government controls are far too complicated. With all the political influence and scientists, it's just too hard to make decisions that are 'conservation minded'. So let's give control over recreational activities and uses of the river to the parks department. They can use their vast experience in river management to administer the new 'Riverine Sanctuary' for tourism and recreational photography.

Have I got your attention now GaryK?

Yes, the bottom trawlers caused the problems offshore with groundfish. Think real hard here, Ok? The damage is already done. The horse has run away and you can replace the barn door with Fort Knox .. the horse ain't comin back.

We have in effect right now as a result of regulation under Magnuson-Stevens, Federal and local agencies .. one of the largest closures in terms of square miles ever imposed anywhere. The draggers are excluded from bottom trawls, they are totally excluded from much of the continental slope, they are limited to midwater trawls for flatfish and netting shrimp. Other Comm-fish activities still allowed are Salmon trolling, crabbing, near shore hook and line fishing for black rockfish, ling, cabezon and the live rockfish activities. This is heavily restricted and the quota is dropping every year. Gill nets are not allowed in the ocean because the collateral damage is inexcusable.

Sport fishing is also restricted. The rockpile is closed on all depth Halibut days. This was a change requested by a vocal minority of Sport-fishers .. count me among that group .. with the idea that we should avoid catching the limited bottom fish during Halibut trips. The limits on some of the 'red' fish are on the order of one ton. That's (250) 8 pound Yellow-eye. When that quota is expended, rules already in place shut down fishing for bottom fish. We want to fish so we have asked for management in detail and the risk of closures is part of that whole deal. Catch and release bottom fish does not work, they float away dead. And let's not forget about the 40 fathom closure. Another huge chunk of ocean that is closed to sportfishers for most of the year.


Hmmm... sounds like there are some regulation actions happening right now and some of them are pretty severe. No Jean Michele Cousteau, no Sierra club, no ONRC no PETA, no PEW charitable trust no sandal wearing, ain't never been on a fishing boat, TOFU eating environmentalist, vegetarian can't even understand what is already being done environmental **** had anything to do with it either.

Now these clowns want to come in and show us how to preseve our marine eco-system. I'll tell you how .. let the existing sytem work and wait like a hundred years for these incredibly slow growing fish to rebuild the populations. Keep the people who are the most interested and the most experienced in the marine environment on the water where they can do the most good.

The regulations allowed the comm-fish interests to deplete the rockfish. This is true. Things are different now. Sportsfishers are a part of the regulation process. It's not just Comm-fish participating in the regulation process. Don't believe for a second that the failure to stop the rockfish decline is not a part of everything the regulators are doing now. They are studying this fish like never before and the more they learn, the more restrictions go in.

Things are different now because the sport fishers are involved with ODFW. Like STEP, ODFW is engaged with sport interests in the Marine program. We (OCEAN) are building a non-profit organization to educate marine anglers. We have the support and cooperation of ODFW. We have the attention of neighboring states who are contacting us for info on our program, even before it is up and running. Our goal is to make smarter fishers into stewards of the nearshore fisheries. Instead of locking them out .. offer them a chance to make it better. To participate with research, to be knowledgeable about the fish they are targeting, to be able to avoid the limited fish and to learn how to effectively release bycatch fish.

Go ahead and lock out the people who through self interest are most motivated to make positive changes.

A little late perhaps on the regulations but the system is working. Most important .. we as sport fishers are a part of it. The regulators listen to us and include us in the decision process.

It's almost as if the purveyors of this truckload of horse crap we are calling the 'Marine Reserve' legislation don't know or care about the existing efforts to regulate the marine zone. They are just assuming that no one is working on it and that they have a better idea.

Lock it up and take pictures.

I don't need to read the RFA paper to know that this is a bad idea pushed by people who have another agenda than the one that is stated. They say they are wanting to help the coastal communities. But they are oblivious to the fact that the money that supports these communities comes from the very people they plan on shutting out. They don't fish or hunt and think that you should not either. To me that is an awful lot like someone forcing me to go to a church or join a national party because they know best.

When they do thier homework and notice that a large group of people are already regulating and doing a pretty good job of managing the marine zone .. when they account for the real economic effect of locking up the ocean .. when they acknowledge that the experts are engaged and focused on this complex problem and when they change their approach to account for these things ... then I will give what they are saying another look.

Until then I'll defer to Tom McCall, god bless him,

'Welcome to Oregon, visiting hours from 9 to 5, Monday to Friday.'

[BUGLEMAN]

that upset natural ecological
functions that occur within the area of marine reserves.

Actually this is the action word and points to a management objective. It doesn't say no fishing, it says activities that upset ecological funcitions. Just think, if this managment mentality was in effect prior to the yellow eye being depleted by the commercial fishermen.

That being said, I don't like the bill.

[OceanBlue]

This was forwarded to me by Oregon Anglers (posting with permission) The author has some very good points and voices some of my concerns very well. Enjoy the read

The proposed language in Section 2 is extremely vague and appears to be inherently inconsistent. For instance, subsection 2(2)(d) appears to allow sport fishing, but also implies uses must be limited to those uses that do not harm the marine ecosystem. Does this mean the only allowed sport
fishing is catch and release fishing? Does this subsection prohibit the collection of crabs, clams, or even sea shells. Under subsection 2(c), can students collect marine specimens for educational purposes? When I attended the UW Fisheries college, we collected marine specimens using a host of different fishing methods, fish traps, line fishing and netting. The bill would appear to limit the educational experience to "look but don't touch."

Also subsection 2(4) requires the State Parks and Recreation Commission to develop rules that limit the use of the proposed parks to activities that "ensure the protection and enhancement of marine ecosystems" within the
parks. This provision appears to conflict with the requirements in subsection 2(2) that allows for sport fishing or other uses (i.e., educational actities, tourism) that could impact such ecosystems.

The biggest concern I have with the parks proposal is that the public can do all of the activities now that the bill promoters claim as purposes for the parks, i.e., sport fishing, recreation, tourism. In other words, the marine
parks are unnecessary to ensure the continued public use and access to these areas. The public already has access and use of the ocean waters and submerged lands. So, to frame the purpose of the bill as a means to ensure public use and access is simply misleading.

The real reason for the bill is to limit and prohibit certain activities. The promoters, however, attempt to establish those limits by listing the activities that will be allowed, not listing the activities that are prohibited. Framing the bill in this manner leads to a very narrow definition of allowed activities and the prohibition of every thing else (even activities that are not inconsistent with the purpose of the parks, but which the promoters have not thought of). Obviously the promoters
of the bill want to frame the language of the bill in "allowed" uses, so they can avoid the negative blow back from those who will lose certain uses. If the purpose of the legislation is to prohibit certain activities, i.e.,
as discussed in the recitals, then the legislation should be framed in the negative - i.e., which activities are prohibited.

Also, the promoters have made many misguided assumptions in justifying this bill. For instance, they admit in the recitals that there is a general lack of understanding about the extent and significance of human activities
on marine ecosystems, but then argue that certain activities must be banned.

Also, if the problem is over fishing, then ban over fishing - not the creation of marine parks. If over fishing is the problem, it's either caused by a lack enforcement of current fish management regulations or
incorrect fish management regulations (allowing too much harvest). The solution should be better regulations and proper enforcement of fishing regulations - not the creation of parks. This is like solving poaching
problems by creating parks instead of catching the poachers.

As you know, the real purpose behind this bill is to preserve marine habitat. (Like protecting old growth forests through establishment of critical habitat for spotted owls.) But the legislation goes about protecting marine habitat the wrong way. It calls for marine parks to be established adjacent to all land-based parks (for the purpose of preserving unique marine ecosystems) without any information that such areas have unique ecological significance. As you state - this is just a land grab.
If the underlying purpose is to protect unique or valuable marine ecosystems then the bill should be based on some scientific data or reports that identify areas that have (1) contain unique features that should be protected and (2) need special protection.

I also have many questions about the amount of land involved in the proposals. Do we have any idea as to the amount of submerged land that could be affected by the development of marine parks and reserves? Marine
parks would be limited to areas adjacent to land-based parks. Marine reserves, however, could be established on any state-owned tidal submerged lands. This raises a few definitional issues: Is there a definition of "state-owned tidal submerged lands" in other laws? Are "state-owned
tidal submerged lands" a subset of "ungranted tidal submerged lands under ORS 274.710" or the same?

[lingslayer]

The PFMC and State of Oregon are currently working on specific areas to designate as EFH (Essential Fish Habitat) and HAPCs (Habitat Areas of Particular Concern). (see some of last fall's threads) This was ordered to comply with the last Magnuson/Stevens revisions. The first step is to designate these areas. The second step is to hand down rules to reduce the damage to these areas and minimize impact on the fish using these areas.

Since the State loves to turn every tidal rock formation on the coast into a park, many EFHs and HAPCs will be involved seaward of said parks, and bankies may lose many of these areas anyway! How far they will extend westward has yet to be determined, but this bill makes the prospects all the more ugly.
At the least this bill is redundant, but at it's worst it has the potential to, as others have mentioned, "lock us out".

We need to be more aware of ALL of the work being done, both legislative, and administrative, where habitat is concerned.

They can't take it away directly, so they will use a back door like habitat to do the deed if they can. We have seen this many times before,in various industries and pastimes. Why would ANYONE be surprised? Also, a lot of Kalifornia's elite sandal wearing green party members have purchased much of Oregon's ocean view property and brought with them their elitist values. (Ever try to buy bait/tackle in Lincoln City?) They are well funded and connected.

Stay vigilant and vocal oh salty sistahs an' bruthas, especially when issues of habitat arise.

Jamie

[corrirod]

I don't have time to expand on this right now but I was thinking about the "habitat" thing while I was driving home from Newport this morning.

As we all know, whether it's freshwater or saltwater, habitat is an issue with fish. We know that trying to create better habitat for salmon in the river helps the juveniles, which in turn helps the population. To make this short, the same rules apply towards saltwater fish. Having nurseries for new stocks to hide and grow is key so why are we not trying to create more "habitat" for these species? We have thousands of miles of ocean out there and yet I hear nothing about adding habitat . Surely with all the waste in the world, some of it could be used to make habitat where there is none now? I've heard of states sinking ships to create habitat in other parts of the world but none here.

I was looking at the 3d Bath charts the other day wondering why a 1-2 mile square area called the "chicken ranch" appears to be the only place in the ocean that holds yellow-eye? Nothing stands out in that area that is much different than the other 400 miles north or south of it. What am I missing?

Anyway, I'm on a tight schedule today so I've got to run but I'd love to hear what you guys think about artificial habitat. There is a lot of "wasted space" out there that sure seems like it could be used to create more fish. How many refrigerators, freezers, and washer and dryers end up at the dump that would make a great home to a 20 lb. lingcod or two? Just a thought.

[lost_sailor]

A little less preaching to your choir, a little more preaching to your elected representatives --- you could get your way.

[lingslayer]

Having nurseries for new stocks to hide and grow is key so why are we not trying to create more "habitat" for these species? We have thousands of miles of ocean out there and yet I hear nothing about adding habitat . Surely with all the waste in the world, some of it could be used to make habitat where there is none now? I've heard of states sinking ships to create habitat in other parts of the world but none here.
Anyway, I'm on a tight schedule today so I've got to run but I'd love to hear what you guys think about artificial habitat. There is a lot of "wasted space" out there that sure seems like it could be used to create more fish. How many refrigerators, freezers, and washer and dryers end up at the dump that would make a great home to a 20 lingcod or two? Just a thought.

Good points Rod. While I was at the PFMCs Ad-Hoc meeting in Dec. I was talking to a member of the Coastside Fishing Club and we discussed the idea of "building" habitat. I suggested that since the State of Oregon is rebuilding all of our substandard highway bridges, and generating alot of reinforced concrete rubble, that it could be used effectively to build offshore reefs that would benefit the fish and the fishers by creating habitat and the state by reducing any disposal fees.
One official from the PFMC did mention the idea had merit, but that enviro impact and permitting would be a nightmare as it would be introducing "unnatural habitat" into the public domain.

Maybe this is something that could be approached through the ODFW?
OCEAN?
Patty Burke maybe?
OB, what do you think?

Jamie

[mcdaib]

Actually, it may be the ACLU who ends up suing for our right to fish offshore if this law passes. Better keep our groups straight here

[OceanBlue]

Jamie, good suggestion. I'm assuming that this has been discussed much in the past, but I'll see what the current thinking and climate is. Maybe we can get Patty to give it a little energy when her dept gets a little "break" in May.

[skein]

I think that's a great idea, especially since it could be expanded to areas that don't traditionally have rockfish structure and populations.

And again, this is not a new concept. It's been done successfully all around the American coastline. I do think, however, that the intent of this legislation is not to provide habitat, but rather to provide [one agency with] control over access and utilization.

Rod, your idea is one of the most proactive I've seen. How can they argue with bolstering fish stocks through the construction of habitat.

Skein

[gimmeumpqua]

I have a better idea.
We need to sponsor our own bill. A smart one that defines and solidifies intelligent recreational usage of our marine resources. We would be much more effective massively supporting popular and effective legislation than trying to oppose a bunch of hypocrites that we can't even relate to.

Anyone with any connections to an angling congressman that might be interested?

Kurt

[Mark Mc]

Kurt, if RFA's Freedom to Fish Act were to be passed in Oregon, this latest threat would be almost a moot point.